Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
IDS
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on November 9, 2023 and February 14, 2025 are being considered by the Examiner.
Drawing
The drawing filed on November 9, 2023 is accepted by the Examiner.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C. §112
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In reference to claims 1, 8 and 15: for instance, claim 1 of the method calls for “substituting first modeled information for the first sensor information”; however, it is not clearly defined what attributes are considered for this model substitution or sensor information. Further, the claim also calls for “generating a second modeled information associated with second sensing device and neighboring seismic event”, but it not clear what function or functional attributes are considered for such model generation. In the absence of a clear definition and relationships of such analysis, it is not even clear how those “seismic event” locations are determined. Claims 8 and 15 are analogous to claim 1. The dependent claims inherit the attributes of their respective base claims and include similar issues.
Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C. §101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
In reference to claims 1-20: the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The requirement for subject matter eligibility test for products and processes requires first, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. §101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The latter three categories define "things" or "products" while the first category defines "actions" (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed).
Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions" are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature).
In the first step, it is to be determined whether the patent claim under examination is directed to an abstract idea. If so, in the second step of analysis, it is to be determined whether the patent adds to the idea "something more" or "significantly more" that embodies an "inventive concept."
In the instant case, claim 1 is representative and it is reproduced here with the limitations that are part of the abstract idea in bold:
A method for determining a seismic event location of a first seismic event, the method comprising:
determining an apparent location of the first seismic event based on first sensor information from a first sensing device;
substituting first modeled information for the first sensor information;
generating second modeled information associated with a second sensing device and a neighboring seismic event; and
determining the seismic event location based on the first and second modeled information.
Step 2A:
Prong I: The claim recites the steps of " determining an apparent location of the first seismic event based on first sensor information from a first sensing device; substituting first modeled information for the first sensor information; generating second modeled information associated with a second sensing device and a neighboring seismic event; and determining the seismic event location based on the first and second ". These limitations could be carried out as a purely mental process (at least in a some relatively simple situations) and/or mathematical algorithm (as in creating model information involves computational analysis). Therefore, the recited method falls in the abstract idea grouping of mental processes and/or mathematical concepts at Prong 1 of the §101 analysis.
Prong II:
This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application at Prong 2 of the §101 analysis because the claim does not recite sufficient additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites the method comprising the additional element steps of "first sensing device” and “second sensing device” for the purposes of gathering data. However, these sensors are being used for merely a data gathering step recited at a high level of generality. Their implementation or role in the concept of “determining [the] seismic event location” does not extend the concept beyond the abstract idea.
The courts have found that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea (such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or make the claim qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
The claim does not recite applying the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine, nor does the claim affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The claim amounts to manipulating data: taking a data (data obtained from a sensor), substitute by a model, generate a second model based on a second event, and use the two models to come up a seismic event location. The claim does not recite any particular real-world actions that are taken as a result the determination of the seismic event location. The method seems to be purely a human activity or a human thought process. Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear to be limited to the use of the mental process or math in a particular practical application, but instead the claim appears to monopolize the mental process or math itself, in any practical application where it might conceivably be used.
Step 2B:
Finally, at Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to Prong 2. Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claims 8 and 15 are analogous to claim 1, except that claims 8 and 15 are directed to a system and non-transitory computer-readable medium which include a processor and a memory. However, these additional elements separate from the abstract idea that need to be considered at Prong 2 of the §101 analysis. However, these additional elements are merely generic computer processing components that are invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which does not cause the respective claims as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Claims 8 and 15 are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101 as well.
Dependent claims 2 and 9: the instant claims are directed to detection of wave components, and are considered gathering of data at a high level of generality.
Dependent claims 3, 10, and 16: the instant claim is directed to general characteristics of modeling of a subsurface with travel time, but lacks the specific instances that the model would provide significantly more than the abstract idea or a model representation.
Dependent claims 4, 11, and 17: the instant claims are directed to matching the first modeled information to the second modeled information, and reads on a human thought process or human activity.
Dependent claims 5, 12 and 18: the instant claims are directed to performing a multi-array 3D Geiger final solution which is a generic application to the first model and second modeled information; and does not transform the abstract idea into something significantly more.
Dependent claims 6, 13 and 19: the instant claims are directed to adjusting subsurface operation …based on the determined seismic event location; however, the instant idea reads on human activity since it is not known what specific operation would have carried out.
Dependent claims 7, 14 and 20: the instant claims are directed to the characterization of the events in the two models, and it is not significantly more than the abstract idea of determining a seismic event location based on the first and second modeled information.
Related Art
In reference to claims 1, 8 and 15: Lemons et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,333,792, hereon Lemons) discloses system and method for assessing seismic risk or a system and method for determining a seismic event location (see Lemons, abstract). The method comprises receiving a plurality of training input parameters associated with a first location, determine at least one training seismic value at the control location from independent sources, run quality control on input parameters and normalize based on statistics, derive a process model which relates input parameters to training output parameters, input the process model into a simulation and perform multiple iterations based on a statistical data model, and determine influence values for each input parameter contributing to the process model (see Lemons, Fig. 3, flow chart). Further, the system receives a second location of interest, determine a plurality of working input parameters associated with the second location, run quality control on data and normalize based on statistics, apply the process model on the working input parameters to determine output parameters and display output parameters with opportunities for iteration with the data (see Lemons, Fig. 4, flow chart).
However, the instant application is different in that “determining an apparent location of the first seismic event based on first sensor information from a first sensing device; substituting first modeled information for the first sensor information; generating second modeled information associated with a second sensing device and a neighboring seismic event; and determining the seismic event location based on the first and second modeled information,” which does not seem clear how such system would be able to detect the seismic activity based on the respective models without knowing what parameters would be considered and how they would be applied.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kamalov et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,385,365) discloses a method for determining, by using the generated model, a location of a seismic event by detecting a set of time series of polarization states, wherein the set of time series of polarization states may include a first time series of polarization states detected by a first station at a first location along the underwater optical route and a second time series of polarization states detected by a second station at a second location along the optical route, and wherein the location of the seismic event is determined based on a difference between detection times by the first station and the second station.
Thiruvenkatanathan (U.S PAP 2020/0174149) discloses a method of identifying events includes obtaining an acoustic signal from a sensor, determining one or more frequency domain features from the acoustic signal, providing the one or more frequency domain features as inputs to a plurality of event detection models, and determining the presence of one or more events using the plurality of event detection models. The one or more frequency domain features are obtained across a frequency range of the acoustic signal, and at least two of the plurality of event detection models are different.
Hill (U.S. Patent No. 7,480,206) discloses a method for creating an enhanced seismic image is described. Seismic data is acquired from a seismic survey conducted over a subterranean region. The seismic data is transformed into energy components, preferably Gaussian beam components. An earth model is created which is comprised of lens elements. The set of energy components is propagated or migrated through the lens elements to form image components which are combined into a seismic image.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIAS DESTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 to 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ELIAS DESTA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights